Woody: If a year from now we say three of our standards dont meet these, out of thirty, we have a red mark. For example, the Reference Information model and core principles dont use these, but they define consistency. There needs to be a recognition that this is appropriate for standards that are developing RIm-defined standards.

Helen:Whatever we come up with needs to recognize all of the products. CMETS are not relative to the EHR-FM. We should measure using the FM.

Woody: We need to limit to standards that derive from the RIM.

Ravi: SHould we call them at the level of implementation standards, derivation standards.

Austin: Standards based on/derived from the RIM. I want to avoid throwing this out, and coming up with something that is not measurable. If we modified to state 'Standards built on the RIM, derived from the RIM'

Woody: Include RIM-derived information models.

Helen: Would we develop requirements for the other products, or just this one.

Austin: We should add others that are measurable.

Woody: Cross-artifact consistency - if you are not developing RIM-Derived models, it does not apply.

Helen: Consistency in profiles is as necessary as are RIM-Derived.

Woody:Consistency within standards that deal with methodology - both pre-SAIF and post-SAIF.

Austin: Right now, the TSC. We may do things to correct that. We need a years worth of data to assess.

Motion "Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average Green of 75% or better participation. Yellow 50-74%. 0-49 is red." (Ravi/Woody)

Vote (10 affirmative, 0 Abstain, 0 Negative)

Product Quality:

Product development effectiveness:

Austin: This is not about the individual ballots. Will have to modify the publication request.

Woody: Items 1-2 dont seem to apply.

Austin: May not be ready.

Woody: Product Development Effectiveness - overall metric -how long did it take, but there are also transient metrics.

Austin: We would look at how many cycles it took a ballot to pass 1-2 cycles green, 3-4 ballots yellow, 5+ red. If the average over the year is 1-2 green, 3-4 yellow, 5+ red.

Woody: Another is a metric of what do we have at risk past 2.

Austin: Two measures - moving average of latency of normative ballot.

Frieda: Just normative? Not the lifecycle.

Austin: Yes

Frieda: PSS is looking at a life cycle. It is not easy to measure. I like the at-risk count.

Woody: Goes along with Product ballot Quality - measures the development dynamically.

Austin: Can we re-engineer it - I will do so, and send to Woody.

Austin: I would be happy to take Item 3 as is - moving average based on publication requests.

3.items going into third or higher round of balloting for a normative specification; (Note: This flags concern while the process is ongoing; it is not necessarily a measure of quality once the document it has finished balloting).

Green: 1-2 ballots

Yellow: 3-4 ballots

Red: 5+ ballots

Woody: Annual ? Will be flaky until the end of a year.

Austin: On a trimester basis they may be weaker.

Woody: We need to think this through some more. We need to discuss the what-ifs.

Austin: Agreed. Will re-think.

Woody: I will be absent next week.

Austin: I have rattled V3 publishing and V2 publishing about ballot quality. We need to talk to EHR-FM about functional profiles.

Woody: If you can limit it to the current stats, I can provide.

Austin: I will join publishing to discuss it.

Austin: Still need to tackle "Industry responsiveness and easier implementation" as well as "WGM Effectiveness". Will discuss with John Quinn.

Tracker # 1815 TSC to develop guidelines on what should be Informative vs. DSTU vs. Normative; last version: BallotGuidance-20120326. DAMs Previously published as DSTU

Need also to identify criteria for why some EHR FPs are informative (Vital Records) and some are normative (Behavioral Health)

TSC Guidance on Ballot Levels:

Woody: I have a problem with "Describe how a conformant implementation guide..."

Austin: Should we clarify with "Those standards that are to be consumed externally should describe how conformant implementation guides should be built for the standard"

Austin: There will be exemptions.

Woody: Should is fine. We need to recognize that there are classes of standards that do not have implementation guides.

Frieda: So for IG's you need to do all three?

Woody: "should provide or reference?" We could come up with a generic conformance stateme for CDA.